1 - How might the APT be used to help integrate paper materials with born-digital materials? How would access for these items change or improve as a result of processing them together? Is the idea that researchers could then access all materials digitally, or would they request access to paper documents in person and then interact with the born-digital materials through another way, e.g. a computer available in the reading room?
2 - Would having archivists interact with primarily digitized materials negatively affect the way they understand or process paper objects? What gets "lost in translation" when digitizing a document and then processing the digitized image?
1 On page 340, the author mentions the quality of digitization and says that improper digitalization may cause lack of information. And the author also mentions this problem that the lack of digital representation for physical characteristics. As far as I think, this refers to the question that to what degree the digitalization is enough, since it is unrealistic to digitalize every detail of the original materials.
2 With APT, as mentioned in the paper, researchers can edit metadata for materials and put them into certain hierarchy. So when doing this, can the real hierarchy tree showed on the table? And by the way, considering the the problem of double side papers, is that possible for researchers making a 3D table in the future to solve this?
3 The paper talks about finding a new way to process archival-- digital first and process second, instead of traditional way-- process first, digitize second. The new way seems cool for its APT platform. But when put it in practical use, since the traditional way only needs to digital the result of the processing outcome. And the new way need to digital every original material into digital format. Is that need to a lot more work and resource in working in this way? And since the new way would loose some physical characters of the original materials, so is that the traditional way have more advantage considering these factors?
1. This research could open to other technical possibilities. Right now, APT uses MASH, which is a browser-based technology and was built more 10 years ago. Though functional/ usable, APT’s user experience is not optimized. MASH is tailored to the interaction of mouse on a desktop browser, instead of the interaction of fingers on a multi-touch screen. This leads to a lot of problems, for example it only supports single touch and the animation is not fluid. So I propose using modern mobile technology. In this way, the archivists could process the collections in their mobile phones and tablets, which is very convenient. If they need a large processing space as the paper mentions, we can mirror their mobile screens to a large touch tabletop, which shows the same interface.
2. In the pluralistic walkthrough evaluation, the researchers gathered the user data using observation and interviews. But I wonder why there was a second interview for the participant after one week of the session. Wouldn’t there be overlappings between these two interviews? Are the data gathered from the second interview accurate because of the delay?
3. The design of APT employs a lot of metaphors from the processing of physical collections. Metaphor reduces the learning curves of the users. But metaphor can also break as functionality that is not available in the physical world is provided to the tool. So wouldn't it be great to design a new interface and a new practice of processing that aim to take advantages of the new technology and to increase the productivity? Furthermore, touch screen and surface computing are quite prevalent right now with the mass adoption of smartphones. I think even if designing the interface heavily on the technology, people would still find it easy to interact.
1. APT seems like an innovative approach to archival processing, and a great tool for archivists if a final product is created. Is APT already slated to be implemented at any institutions? Would the implementation of this product be a realistic possibility for archives, as so many of them already run on very restrained budgets?
2. The article did not state if the APT was an intuitive setup for archival processing. For someone involved in the creation of APT, the controls and functions of the product are much clearer than to someone who is new to the system. Would the use of such an application require training, or would it be as easy as buying and iPad and just reading the instructions?
3. I feel that many digital libraries act as service providers, offering things such as repository management or digital preservation, or they simply just play host to collections. Would incorporating APT into the digital library result in the need for digital libraries to focus more on archives? Would it even be a plausible solution for most digital libraries? Or is just dependent on the digital library's collection/purpose?
1. Since Augmented Processing Table is a specially-designed technology device, won't it become obsolete quickly? Also it is not a common piece of technology, thus giving it very limited use. Is it wise to use this type of technological device when you want to develop a process that can stand a longer period of time and fluctuations of technology?
2. The collection tested was made from all physically-existing items that were then scanned. I understand why they did this in order to have a base comparison for digital vs. physical archival assessment. Some of the issues that were brought to attention during the usability study were related to scanned items - such as two-sided or multi-paged documents. These would not be a concern in digitally-born materials. I wonder if there would be other issues if the study was done again using only digitally-born materials?
1. Who created the APT (technology and physical prototype) - this group? Are any companies or other institutions working on similar technologies? It struck me as very similar to photoshop, though inferior (as presented here - Photoshop already does most of the "wishlist" functions demanded by the study participants); can these prototypes be collaboratively designed, funded, and built?
2. What is uniquely challenging about this process re: archival bond? Compared and contrasted to conventional processing... ?
3. When the test was run, did participants have subject knowledge? What might we learn from doing an experiment with one participant (or a group of participants) with subject knowledge, and one without? How might this technology aid "blind" processing by less knowledgeable archivists or volunteers?
1. In the author’s opinion, physical materials should be processed after they are digitized so that we could process them with born-digital material. This is a very practical model, but it would face lots of problems. Some physical materials probably do not need digitization, how can we know a material should be digitized or not before processing? If we digitized all physical materials, it might cost too much money and energy. However, it is admittedly that digitizing every physical material will be a trend in the future.
2. I wonder if an item is added to a higher level group, such as a series or subgroup, can this item be add to another group at the same time? If we can add a same item to different groups, how will it look like on the APT?
3. Why not using the files and file folders in PC to deal with this problem. Except the visualization, is there any other characteristic of APT? Since the APT need big space, I still prefer computer to improve the archive processing’s efficiency.
1. The authors mention that ‘a key part of this context is the archival bond – the notion that a relationship exists between all records created as part of the same activity’ (p336). So why is the archival bond so important? Is it difficult to find, maintain and preserve the archival bond?
2. ‘APT creates a space that allows for the processing of digitized materials in combination with born-digital material, integrating both modalities (paper and digital) in one workspace.’ (p337) It seems that APT is an amazing tool for archival processing. So is it used widely? What can it do except that is mentioned above? What is the limitation of APT?
3. In the pluralistic walkthrough evaluation part, when talking about creating and utilizing metadata, the authors say that ‘APT can allow for notes to be directly appended to the images, something that is not done with physical item due to preservation concerns’(p341). I don’t think so. Sometimes, we will write down notes on the back of physical images or add tags to them for preservation concerns. So why do the authors say that?
1. At the beginning of the article the author mentioned that digital files suffered from legacy issues and file incompatibilities at times, I am wondering if these problems are becoming less relevant as the processing power of computers is increased and the ability for emulation becomes more robust, fluid, and open source.
2. I’m wondering if any archivists have considered tackling interactive media such as video games or art installations with devices like the media table. While this article focused a lot on creating a digital environment for more traditional archival arrangement practices I would like to know more about features which are unique such as being able to apply notes directly on top of items.
3. The software mentioned in this paper seemed like a great start to dealing with digital born documents. I am curious what other types of features could be implemented to this process such as batch file processing to make the process for efficient than the traditional table method.
1 - While technology does permit us more opportunities for emulation, the primary problem digital archives tend to experience (from my limited knowledge...) is hardware obsolescence. I might be able to view an old WordPerfect file, but not have the software or a computer that's capable of actually viewing said file type. Digital archivists tend to view migration as a more practical response, although valuable context and metadata are lost when migrating. Emulation is kind of viewed as a "boutique" solution for high-profile collections, e.g. Emory's Salman Rushdie Archive: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/books/16archive.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I think it would be great to see (or hear about, if they're already happening) OpenSource solutions for accessing legacy files. Ultimately archivists have to rely on open source software because budgets are so limited, and I think that would be great way to enhance communication between archivists and IT/CS professionals.
1. On page 336, the author mentions that "These archival records, though they can be read as individual units, lose much of their meaning as evidence when managed and accessed independently". What causes the meaning lost during the process of archiving?
2. The APT system introduced in this article supports user manipulations at the object and group level, but how to reduce or avoid the negative impact from unprofessional users?
3. I am curious about an aspect relating to the APT evaluation, but not mentioned in this article. Does this system have instructions or proper guides for users to get started? Is it user-friendly?
1) What has led to the problem noted on 336, wherein physical materials and digital materials are processed so differently that connections between them are lost? Is this a problem that arose because of the different skill set necessary to process digital materials? Was it caused by viewing or valuing digital materials differently than physical ones?
2) The APT project seems really interesting, and the article is clear on the implications for archival processing. I am curious how the APT and the associated “digitize first” archival processing model would affect information retrieval. Would it be possible to use a similar technology to facilitate archival research by users?
3) I’m very interested in the use of spatial and visual information to convey relationships between information resources. The APT draws these connections through branched connections between resources (i.e. groups and subgroups, stacks, etc.). How would the APT’s spatial information model deal with a document that could rightly be included in several different groups or subgroups?
1. The APT seems like an interesting possible tool for the manipulation of digitized objects. As it becomes increasingly difficult to handle the volume of paper records still generated even now, some faster method of arrangement is necessary. However, nowhere does it mention the cost of this tool. How much does it cost, and will smaller archives be able to access it?
2. The notion of the archival bond is mentioned as important to retain, and the APT is a tool intended to assist with the retention of these physical arrangements of documents. How will the retention of these physical arrangements aid with the understanding of the materials without extended metadata finding aids?
3. One large problem mentioned is that “digitized” objects are simply not processed at all in many libraries, requiring both high-quality digital images to be created and very specialized sorting and storing methods. The APT is one proposed tool. What other proposed tools exist, and are MARC and other finding aids of use in trying to arrange these materials?
1. Is there a way to easily integrate the processing of digitizing first, processing second with the archival crowdsourcing suggested by Hodge?
2. Does digitizing documents first and documenting them along with born-digital resources help or hurt archivists maintain original order? Would the line between paper and digital documents have existed in some form when they were created and used as well?
1. On page 336, it says that "Born-digital materials are processed separately following a different methodology." I'm curious as to what that methodology is and how are born-digital items different from physical materials that become digitized?
2. On page 336 it talks about the archival bond, "the archival bond – the notion that a relationship exists between all records created as part of the same activity. Rather than treating records as standalone objects, archival thinking requires that the archival bond be maintained and preserved in order for records to retain their meaning and evidentiary nature [8]." Is the archival bond similar to the concept of provenance?
3. On page 343, it says "Archival processing has traditionally followed a workflow of “process first, digitize second." What then is the process for born-digital items? How are they processed if they are already sent to the archive already in a digital format?
1. Since the problems with the APT, such as dimension information and zoom factor, were identified and this article was written, have the necessary changes been made? Has any more testing been done? Has the technology gained further acceptance in the archival community?
2. Lemieux mentioned TUI's as having value for the purpose of "incorporating materiality" to assist with arrangement. Have the authors of this article attempted to incorporate any visual analytics into the development of the second prototype for the archival APT?
3. For what purpose were TUI's originally designed. In what other fields are they currently being employed and in what ways? Are there other ways that they could be employed in an archival facility that could justify their expense?
1. It is easy to understand why and how we treat records as standalone object, but archival thinking requires that the archival bond be maintained and preserved in order for records to retain their meaning and evidentiary nature. How could preserved the relation between archival? In which format and how it will be described?
2.In this article, the author highly recommend the Augmented Processing Table (APT) project, which make it a little like an advertisement. But, it seemed APT just display the archive on the electronic screen instead of traditional paper. So what indeed is the advantage of the APT?
3. This question comes after question 2, as far as I can learn from this article, the APT system is described a tabletop computer with a large touchscreen. In terms of the cost of such a machine, why couldn’t use the simple computer without touchscreen to replace it?
On page 336, the article mentions the backlog present for numerous collections which has played a part in the way archivist hope to process materials moving forward. If the “digitize first, process second” mindset is to move forward, how minimal would the metadata generation as the digitization occurs need to be to retain some processing but focus on the digitizing first?
Regarding the matching documents section, how cluttered would the overall UI look and feel if a “layer” option was added to the documents which are double-sided or multi-paged? Or in the case of two documents(front/back, two pages) would taking a single image be the best course of action and rely on the staple or layer function for document with 3+ pages?
The managing group section seems like it might benefit from a sort of mobile UI aspect which utilized folders and a snap to grid section as the participant said they wanted. In that same vein, how difficult would it be or useful would it be to implement a UI design which mimics some current RTS games which have control groups and a hierarchy assigned to specific units that a user is able to tab through to interact with within the control group itself? Assuming the archivist sets predefined hierarchical sets and the system can then assign them the correct hierarchy once placed in the control group.
1. Based on this reading, would you say that the multi-touch table is more effective with digitized documents than it is with born-digital?
2. In thinking about original order in a digital environment, the idea seems to ring true that while original order exists within born-digital materials, it exists in a different way than physical items. Does the multi-touch table imply, or maybe try to prove, that original order in these two environments in fact is not all that different?
3. When discussing the digitization of materials in a collection before the actual act of processing occurs, do the authors mean that all materials within that collection are digitized or just the ones determined to need it? Digitization is often a time-consuming, costly affair and so I’m curious at what level, or depth, this digitization is occurring.
1. If processing has never been studied (or at least, hasn't been studied in our current era of archives and research), how did archival principles evolve as they have? And why isn't there more focus on processing when it is the aspect of archives where most of their backlogs emanate from?
2. One of the things mentioned about TUIs in this paper is that "TUI systems show that interfaces that rely on familiar objects provide predictable and straightforward interactions." Can more clarification be provided about what this means? Does it imply that interfaces that strive to look like 'traditional' types of media (I'm thinking about how Amazon strives to make pages in ebooks appear close to real pages, and brands itself as closer to paper books than its competitors through marketing/product names) people tend to grasp quicker, or at least feel more comfortable towards immediately?
3. While the APT does sound like a great concept for the processing side of the archival world, has any talk begun to emerge regarding 3D printing? I'd be curious to know if anyone has dared to wonder what that might due for archives in terms of duplicating fragile materials (or objects they may want to limit access too -- instead they could have a 3D printed stand-in for general use).
1. I found this article to be very interesting. A lot of the problems the researchers found during user testing are ones that I've seen in other multi-touch interfaces. I would have really liked to have participated in the user research and possibly implemented some changes based on the feedback. After reading the article I have a lot of ideas about how the interactions could potentially be improved.
2. After having worked on a multi-touch surface for a while, I wonder if the table metaphor is necessary for these kinds of interactions. I often found that sitting or standing over a large surface that is perpendicular to the ground quite uncomfortable. Would the interactions change considerably if the multi touch surface was placed at a 45 or 60 degree angle to the ground much like a drafting table?
3. Would it be possible to make something like the APT a collaborative application? What I mean is, would it be possible to utilize a large surface and have multiple archivists working on the same collection at the same time?
1. According to the author, the archivists’ domain knowledge facilitated in identifying various design implications such as maximizing surface area on a workspace, allow for note taking for processing etc. Can these implications be completely implemented? How did these implications arise and do they change based on the test group? 2. The quality of digitization is considered an important phenomenon in archives. Can digitizing still hold the properties of the physical material? What all aspects should we consider while deciding the quality of a digital archive? 3. The ‘digitize first, process second’ concept helps provide high quality of digitization. Is it possible that some relevant important information is lost during the digitization if processing is not done? How can we avoid this?
1. APT, as introduced in the article, can only apply to limited areas. Then I doubt how useful could APT be. In other words, is there a better way to take care of digitized and born-digital materials?
2. In the article, the author argues that multi-touch tables work better for digitized materials than those born-digital ones. Are there any strong evidence to support the conclusion?
3. In this article, the author treats the tendency of digitization as a given. However this might not be the case. For some materials, digitization means the loss of critical information in the materials. How would the author response to this point?
1. In this article the authors discuss the use of an interactive surface in archival processing. The interactive surface that they use is the Augmented Processing Table. What other kinds of interactive media could be useful in archival processing? Would Augmented Reality devices like the Google Glass be useful in processing archival materials? 2. One of the major features of the APT is that it allows an archivist to digitize records first then process the digitized and digital born records second. This is contrary to the current method of processing records first then digitizing them later. What are the benefits and drawbacks of both of these methods of archival processing? 3. In this article the authors argue that one of the features of the APT is that it allows the archivist to attach notes that are created digitally on the surface to the digital files of the digitized records. They state that you cannot do this with a physical record because attaching a note to a physical record has preservation concerns. However wouldn’t this action also have preservation concerns in the digital realm as well? Doesn’t attaching a digital note to a digital file alter that file in some way? Is this alteration ok?
1. What exactly is "spatial hypermedia," and in what kinds of instances is it relevant in the information field? (p. 338) 2. If used as a processing method, what happens to the original documents that have been digitally copied and transferred to the APT? Are they still a part of the collection event though they are not in digital format? 3. When using the APT, what happens once the collection has been processed? Does that information stay on the APT or is transferred elsewhere? Does the APT have a function that assists in text markup and EAD creation?
1. I am wondering if the authors expect that the APT will be able to speed up the arrangement process. Once some additional functionality is added like the staple feature, will the APT allow for faster arrangement or would the time it takes to digitize all the paper materials first offset this? Do the authors expect digitize first and process second to become the norm? 2. Would the table ever become advanced enough to be able to identify if two items were duplicates? Would it also ever be possible to recognize whether a digitized copy of a paper was the same as the original born digital copy it was printed from? 3. When processing paper records, there can be subtle clues in the paper that indicate that the records are related such as the shade of the color or paper, or markings of a removed paper clip or staple. Would it be more difficult for archivists to arrange a digitized paper collection if these clues are not easily detected through the table interface? Are their certain clues that an archivist will only be able to determine with the physical copies?
1. Why is it that paper materials, in most archives, are processed first and digitized second? Does it seem easier to deal with the digital copies of them if they have already been organized, labeled, etc? I guess I’m just asking if there was a reason for a “process first, digitize second” approach or if it was a method developed ad hoc that has been in need of revision for some time.
2. It seems pretty clear that the APT helps eliminate the artificial boundaries between born-digital and digitized materials by allowing for them to be processed together, but how does it help a collection get online more quickly?
3. The APT was designed for the archivist, to assist him/her with processing, but I’m wondering if this development will also lead to new technologies or interfaces for the researchers and other users of the archive collection. If it is easier to organize a collection with a multi-touch table, would it also be easier to access one through such a device?
1. In the section called Lack of Digital Representation for Physical Characteristics, there was no specific mention of representing weight. Is it common to ignore this characteristic when something is digitized?
2. In the same section, is color also an issue for archivists when digitizing? This would include hue, tone, saturation, etc...
3. What do archivists who do not come from iSchool institutions think about this project? Are iSchools the only places where this kind of experimentation is appreciated?
1. The authors used the APT to integrate the processing of digitized and born digital materials. Not being from an archives background, does it make a difference to an archivist if an item is born digital or digitized when arranging the collection? Is there significance or meaning in how an object is represented when arranging collections? Were the born digital objects processed as though they were part of the physical collection and not born digital? 2. After reading this article I wonder how the workflow for archives would change by incorporating the digitize first and process second model? The idea of doing archival processing remotely and collaboratively seems like a game changer for archives. It seemingly breaks down the temporal and spatial boundaries of traditional processing by allowing people remote access to collections and creates the possibility of a communal archive. 3. The authors state that from their observation, in general, the collection was processed as if they were physical materials. I wonder what the differences were in the two collections, physically processed and digitally processed, and if the subtle difference would be more pronounced with a larger collection? What impact would this have on the viewing of collections over time?
1. I wonder if this technology could be adapted/augmented to facilitate the assessment of three-dimensional artifacts in a collection, to allow for the processing of non-traditional documents. Through the use of digitization, this type of technology could bring information not previously able to be included in collections to a place where, in theory, the sky is the limit.
2. I do wonder what happens to documents once they're digitized for use in the APT. Is the APT to serve as the final destination/assessment of the documents to be processed, or is it simply a tool allowing users to create in a digital space a proper sorting and grouping to be replicated in the "real" world at a later time?
3. Why does there exist such a divide between the processing of physical and digital-born documents? What, in the history of archives, has led to such a split?
1. This article presents a very unique approach to digitizing archives and other materials. I think the concept of arranging materials on an interactive surface in order to provide almost instant access is very interesting. However, the article wasn’t completely clear regarding how much material was used in the test phase. I know the table is still in development, but is it a viable way for libraries to manage big collections? The article discussed the amount of current backlog in libraries and the need to think differently about processing materials (336) – but is this the solution for such a large volume of materials?
2. An area the article did not discuss was the cost of maintaining an APT such as the one featured in the article. I know this wasn’t the point of the article, but it is something to be considered. While the table is very impressive, are libraries going to be able to afford one (or more than one)? It seems like when budgets get cut, libraries often bear the brunt of a decrease in funding. How will this table be made affordable? Furthermore, for libraries that do acquire one, what will the training to use it be like?
3. The article mentions that the APT “can allow for notes to be directly appended to the images [on the table], something that is not done with physical items due to preservation concerns” (341). I think this is a very interesting aspect of the APT, as these notes could provide metadata or other such helpful description presumably just by tapping on the image. However, what does this mean for catalogers? Would these notes be the actual cataloging of the document or material? Would actual cataloging (perhaps for the actual physical item) be done after this?
1 - How might the APT be used to help integrate paper materials with born-digital materials? How would access for these items change or improve as a result of processing them together? Is the idea that researchers could then access all materials digitally, or would they request access to paper documents in person and then interact with the born-digital materials through another way, e.g. a computer available in the reading room?
ReplyDelete2 - Would having archivists interact with primarily digitized materials negatively affect the way they understand or process paper objects? What gets "lost in translation" when digitizing a document and then processing the digitized image?
1 On page 340, the author mentions the quality of digitization and says that improper digitalization may cause lack of information. And the author also mentions this problem that the lack of digital representation for physical characteristics. As far as I think, this refers to the question that to what degree the digitalization is enough, since it is unrealistic to digitalize every detail of the original materials.
ReplyDelete2 With APT, as mentioned in the paper, researchers can edit metadata for materials and put them into certain hierarchy. So when doing this, can the real hierarchy tree showed on the table? And by the way, considering the the problem of double side papers, is that possible for researchers making a 3D table in the future to solve this?
3 The paper talks about finding a new way to process archival-- digital first and process second, instead of traditional way-- process first, digitize second. The new way seems cool for its APT platform. But when put it in practical use, since the traditional way only needs to digital the result of the processing outcome. And the new way need to digital every original material into digital format. Is that need to a lot more work and resource in working in this way? And since the new way would loose some physical characters of the original materials, so is that the traditional way have more advantage considering these factors?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. This research could open to other technical possibilities. Right now, APT uses MASH, which is a browser-based technology and was built more 10 years ago. Though functional/ usable, APT’s user experience is not optimized. MASH is tailored to the interaction of mouse on a desktop browser, instead of the interaction of fingers on a multi-touch screen. This leads to a lot of problems, for example it only supports single touch and the animation is not fluid. So I propose using modern mobile technology. In this way, the archivists could process the collections in their mobile phones and tablets, which is very convenient. If they need a large processing space as the paper mentions, we can mirror their mobile screens to a large touch tabletop, which shows the same interface.
ReplyDelete2. In the pluralistic walkthrough evaluation, the researchers gathered the user data using observation and interviews. But I wonder why there was a second interview for the participant after one week of the session. Wouldn’t there be overlappings between these two interviews? Are the data gathered from the second interview accurate because of the delay?
3. The design of APT employs a lot of metaphors from the processing of physical collections. Metaphor reduces the learning curves of the users. But metaphor can also break as functionality that is not available in the physical world is provided to the tool. So wouldn't it be great to design a new interface and a new practice of processing that aim to take advantages of the new technology and to increase the productivity? Furthermore, touch screen and surface computing are quite prevalent right now with the mass adoption of smartphones. I think even if designing the interface heavily on the technology, people would still find it easy to interact.
1. APT seems like an innovative approach to archival processing, and a great tool for archivists if a final product is created. Is APT already slated to be implemented at any institutions? Would the implementation of this product be a realistic possibility for archives, as so many of them already run on very restrained budgets?
ReplyDelete2. The article did not state if the APT was an intuitive setup for archival processing. For someone involved in the creation of APT, the controls and functions of the product are much clearer than to someone who is new to the system. Would the use of such an application require training, or would it be as easy as buying and iPad and just reading the instructions?
3. I feel that many digital libraries act as service providers, offering things such as repository management or digital preservation, or they simply just play host to collections. Would incorporating APT into the digital library result in the need for digital libraries to focus more on archives? Would it even be a plausible solution for most digital libraries? Or is just dependent on the digital library's collection/purpose?
1. Since Augmented Processing Table is a specially-designed technology device, won't it become obsolete quickly? Also it is not a common piece of technology, thus giving it very limited use. Is it wise to use this type of technological device when you want to develop a process that can stand a longer period of time and fluctuations of technology?
ReplyDelete2. The collection tested was made from all physically-existing items that were then scanned. I understand why they did this in order to have a base comparison for digital vs. physical archival assessment. Some of the issues that were brought to attention during the usability study were related to scanned items - such as two-sided or multi-paged documents. These would not be a concern in digitally-born materials. I wonder if there would be other issues if the study was done again using only digitally-born materials?
1. Who created the APT (technology and physical prototype) - this group? Are any companies or other institutions working on similar technologies? It struck me as very similar to photoshop, though inferior (as presented here - Photoshop already does most of the "wishlist" functions demanded by the study participants); can these prototypes be collaboratively designed, funded, and built?
ReplyDelete2. What is uniquely challenging about this process re: archival bond? Compared and contrasted to conventional processing... ?
3. When the test was run, did participants have subject knowledge? What might we learn from doing an experiment with one participant (or a group of participants) with subject knowledge, and one without? How might this technology aid "blind" processing by less knowledgeable archivists or volunteers?
1. In the author’s opinion, physical materials should be processed after they are digitized so that we could process them with born-digital material. This is a very practical model, but it would face lots of problems. Some physical materials probably do not need digitization, how can we know a material should be digitized or not before processing? If we digitized all physical materials, it might cost too much money and energy. However, it is admittedly that digitizing every physical material will be a trend in the future.
ReplyDelete2. I wonder if an item is added to a higher level group, such as a series or subgroup, can this item be add to another group at the same time? If we can add a same item to different groups, how will it look like on the APT?
3. Why not using the files and file folders in PC to deal with this problem. Except the visualization, is there any other characteristic of APT? Since the APT need big space, I still prefer computer to improve the archive processing’s efficiency.
1. The authors mention that ‘a key part of this context is the archival bond – the notion that a relationship exists between all records created as part of the same activity’ (p336). So why is the archival bond so important? Is it difficult to find, maintain and preserve the archival bond?
ReplyDelete2. ‘APT creates a space that allows for the processing of digitized materials in combination with born-digital material, integrating both modalities (paper and digital) in one workspace.’ (p337) It seems that APT is an amazing tool for archival processing. So is it used widely? What can it do except that is mentioned above? What is the limitation of APT?
3. In the pluralistic walkthrough evaluation part, when talking about creating and utilizing metadata, the authors say that ‘APT can allow for notes to be directly appended to the images, something that is not done with physical item due to preservation concerns’(p341). I don’t think so. Sometimes, we will write down notes on the back of physical images or add tags to them for preservation concerns. So why do the authors say that?
1. At the beginning of the article the author mentioned that digital files suffered from legacy issues and file incompatibilities at times, I am wondering if these problems are becoming less relevant as the processing power of computers is increased and the ability for emulation becomes more robust, fluid, and open source.
ReplyDelete2. I’m wondering if any archivists have considered tackling interactive media such as video games or art installations with devices like the media table. While this article focused a lot on creating a digital environment for more traditional archival arrangement practices I would like to know more about features which are unique such as being able to apply notes directly on top of items.
3. The software mentioned in this paper seemed like a great start to dealing with digital born documents. I am curious what other types of features could be implemented to this process such as batch file processing to make the process for efficient than the traditional table method.
1 - While technology does permit us more opportunities for emulation, the primary problem digital archives tend to experience (from my limited knowledge...) is hardware obsolescence. I might be able to view an old WordPerfect file, but not have the software or a computer that's capable of actually viewing said file type. Digital archivists tend to view migration as a more practical response, although valuable context and metadata are lost when migrating. Emulation is kind of viewed as a "boutique" solution for high-profile collections, e.g. Emory's Salman Rushdie Archive: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/books/16archive.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
DeleteI think it would be great to see (or hear about, if they're already happening) OpenSource solutions for accessing legacy files. Ultimately archivists have to rely on open source software because budgets are so limited, and I think that would be great way to enhance communication between archivists and IT/CS professionals.
1. On page 336, the author mentions that "These archival records, though they can be read as individual units, lose much of their meaning as evidence when managed and accessed independently". What causes the meaning lost during the process of archiving?
ReplyDelete2. The APT system introduced in this article supports user manipulations at the object and group level, but how to reduce or avoid the negative impact from unprofessional users?
3. I am curious about an aspect relating to the APT evaluation, but not mentioned in this article. Does this system have instructions or proper guides for users to get started? Is it user-friendly?
1) What has led to the problem noted on 336, wherein physical materials and digital materials are processed so differently that connections between them are lost? Is this a problem that arose because of the different skill set necessary to process digital materials? Was it caused by viewing or valuing digital materials differently than physical ones?
ReplyDelete2) The APT project seems really interesting, and the article is clear on the implications for archival processing. I am curious how the APT and the associated “digitize first” archival processing model would affect information retrieval. Would it be possible to use a similar technology to facilitate archival research by users?
3) I’m very interested in the use of spatial and visual information to convey relationships between information resources. The APT draws these connections through branched connections between resources (i.e. groups and subgroups, stacks, etc.). How would the APT’s spatial information model deal with a document that could rightly be included in several different groups or subgroups?
1. The APT seems like an interesting possible tool for the manipulation of digitized objects. As it becomes increasingly difficult to handle the volume of paper records still generated even now, some faster method of arrangement is necessary. However, nowhere does it mention the cost of this tool. How much does it cost, and will smaller archives be able to access it?
ReplyDelete2. The notion of the archival bond is mentioned as important to retain, and the APT is a tool intended to assist with the retention of these physical arrangements of documents. How will the retention of these physical arrangements aid with the understanding of the materials without extended metadata finding aids?
3. One large problem mentioned is that “digitized” objects are simply not processed at all in many libraries, requiring both high-quality digital images to be created and very specialized sorting and storing methods. The APT is one proposed tool. What other proposed tools exist, and are MARC and other finding aids of use in trying to arrange these materials?
1. Is there a way to easily integrate the processing of digitizing first, processing second with the archival crowdsourcing suggested by Hodge?
ReplyDelete2. Does digitizing documents first and documenting them along with born-digital resources help or hurt archivists maintain original order? Would the line between paper and digital documents have existed in some form when they were created and used as well?
1. On page 336, it says that "Born-digital materials are processed separately following a different methodology." I'm curious as to what that methodology is and how are born-digital items different from physical materials that become digitized?
ReplyDelete2. On page 336 it talks about the archival bond, "the archival bond – the notion that a relationship exists between all records created as part of the same activity. Rather than treating records as standalone objects, archival thinking requires that the archival bond be maintained and preserved in order for records to retain their meaning and evidentiary nature [8]." Is the archival bond similar to the concept of provenance?
3. On page 343, it says "Archival processing has traditionally followed a workflow of “process first, digitize second." What then is the process for born-digital items? How are they processed if they are already sent to the archive already in a digital format?
1. Since the problems with the APT, such as dimension information and zoom factor, were identified and this article was written, have the necessary changes been made? Has any more testing been done? Has the technology gained further acceptance in the archival community?
ReplyDelete2. Lemieux mentioned TUI's as having value for the purpose of "incorporating materiality" to assist with arrangement. Have the authors of this article attempted to incorporate any visual analytics into the development of the second prototype for the archival APT?
3. For what purpose were TUI's originally designed. In what other fields are they currently being employed and in what ways? Are there other ways that they could be employed in an archival facility that could justify their expense?
1. It is easy to understand why and how we treat records as standalone object, but archival thinking requires that the archival bond be maintained and preserved in order for records to retain their meaning and evidentiary nature. How could preserved the relation between archival? In which format and how it will be described?
ReplyDelete2.In this article, the author highly recommend the Augmented Processing Table (APT) project, which make it a little like an advertisement. But, it seemed APT just display the archive on the electronic screen instead of traditional paper. So what indeed is the advantage of the APT?
3. This question comes after question 2, as far as I can learn from this article, the APT system is described a tabletop computer with a large touchscreen. In terms of the cost of such a machine, why couldn’t use the simple computer without touchscreen to replace it?
On page 336, the article mentions the backlog present for numerous collections which has played a part in the way archivist hope to process materials moving forward. If the “digitize first, process second” mindset is to move forward, how minimal would the metadata generation as the digitization occurs need to be to retain some processing but focus on the digitizing first?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the matching documents section, how cluttered would the overall UI look and feel if a “layer” option was added to the documents which are double-sided or multi-paged? Or in the case of two documents(front/back, two pages) would taking a single image be the best course of action and rely on the staple or layer function for document with 3+ pages?
The managing group section seems like it might benefit from a sort of mobile UI aspect which utilized folders and a snap to grid section as the participant said they wanted. In that same vein, how difficult would it be or useful would it be to implement a UI design which mimics some current RTS games which have control groups and a hierarchy assigned to specific units that a user is able to tab through to interact with within the control group itself? Assuming the archivist sets predefined hierarchical sets and the system can then assign them the correct hierarchy once placed in the control group.
1. Based on this reading, would you say that the multi-touch table is more effective with digitized documents than it is with born-digital?
ReplyDelete2. In thinking about original order in a digital environment, the idea seems to ring true that while original order exists within born-digital materials, it exists in a different way than physical items. Does the multi-touch table imply, or maybe try to prove, that original order in these two environments in fact is not all that different?
3. When discussing the digitization of materials in a collection before the actual act of processing occurs, do the authors mean that all materials within that collection are digitized or just the ones determined to need it? Digitization is often a time-consuming, costly affair and so I’m curious at what level, or depth, this digitization is occurring.
1. If processing has never been studied (or at least, hasn't been studied in our current era of archives and research), how did archival principles evolve as they have? And why isn't there more focus on processing when it is the aspect of archives where most of their backlogs emanate from?
ReplyDelete2. One of the things mentioned about TUIs in this paper is that "TUI systems show that interfaces that rely on familiar objects provide predictable and straightforward interactions." Can more clarification be provided about what this means? Does it imply that interfaces that strive to look like 'traditional' types of media (I'm thinking about how Amazon strives to make pages in ebooks appear close to real pages, and brands itself as closer to paper books than its competitors through marketing/product names) people tend to grasp quicker, or at least feel more comfortable towards immediately?
3. While the APT does sound like a great concept for the processing side of the archival world, has any talk begun to emerge regarding 3D printing? I'd be curious to know if anyone has dared to wonder what that might due for archives in terms of duplicating fragile materials (or objects they may want to limit access too -- instead they could have a 3D printed stand-in for general use).
1. I found this article to be very interesting. A lot of the problems the researchers found during user testing are ones that I've seen in other multi-touch interfaces. I would have really liked to have participated in the user research and possibly implemented some changes based on the feedback. After reading the article I have a lot of ideas about how the interactions could potentially be improved.
ReplyDelete2. After having worked on a multi-touch surface for a while, I wonder if the table metaphor is necessary for these kinds of interactions. I often found that sitting or standing over a large surface that is perpendicular to the ground quite uncomfortable. Would the interactions change considerably if the multi touch surface was placed at a 45 or 60 degree angle to the ground much like a drafting table?
3. Would it be possible to make something like the APT a collaborative application? What I mean is, would it be possible to utilize a large surface and have multiple archivists working on the same collection at the same time?
1. According to the author, the archivists’ domain knowledge facilitated in identifying various design implications such as maximizing surface area on a workspace, allow for note taking for processing etc. Can these implications be completely implemented? How did these implications arise and do they change based on the test group?
ReplyDelete2. The quality of digitization is considered an important phenomenon in archives. Can digitizing still hold the properties of the physical material? What all aspects should we consider while deciding the quality of a digital archive?
3. The ‘digitize first, process second’ concept helps provide high quality of digitization. Is it possible that some relevant important information is lost during the digitization if processing is not done? How can we avoid this?
1. APT, as introduced in the article, can only apply to limited areas. Then I doubt how useful could APT be. In other words, is there a better way to take care of digitized and born-digital materials?
ReplyDelete2. In the article, the author argues that multi-touch tables work better for digitized materials than those born-digital ones. Are there any strong evidence to support the conclusion?
3. In this article, the author treats the tendency of digitization as a given. However this might not be the case. For some materials, digitization means the loss of critical information in the materials. How would the author response to this point?
1. In this article the authors discuss the use of an interactive surface in archival processing. The interactive surface that they use is the Augmented Processing Table. What other kinds of interactive media could be useful in archival processing? Would Augmented Reality devices like the Google Glass be useful in processing archival materials?
ReplyDelete2. One of the major features of the APT is that it allows an archivist to digitize records first then process the digitized and digital born records second. This is contrary to the current method of processing records first then digitizing them later. What are the benefits and drawbacks of both of these methods of archival processing?
3. In this article the authors argue that one of the features of the APT is that it allows the archivist to attach notes that are created digitally on the surface to the digital files of the digitized records. They state that you cannot do this with a physical record because attaching a note to a physical record has preservation concerns. However wouldn’t this action also have preservation concerns in the digital realm as well? Doesn’t attaching a digital note to a digital file alter that file in some way? Is this alteration ok?
1. What exactly is "spatial hypermedia," and in what kinds of instances is it relevant in the information field? (p. 338)
ReplyDelete2. If used as a processing method, what happens to the original documents that have been digitally copied and transferred to the APT? Are they still a part of the collection event though they are not in digital format?
3. When using the APT, what happens once the collection has been processed? Does that information stay on the APT or is transferred elsewhere? Does the APT have a function that assists in text markup and EAD creation?
1. I am wondering if the authors expect that the APT will be able to speed up the arrangement process. Once some additional functionality is added like the staple feature, will the APT allow for faster arrangement or would the time it takes to digitize all the paper materials first offset this? Do the authors expect digitize first and process second to become the norm?
ReplyDelete2. Would the table ever become advanced enough to be able to identify if two items were duplicates? Would it also ever be possible to recognize whether a digitized copy of a paper was the same as the original born digital copy it was printed from?
3. When processing paper records, there can be subtle clues in the paper that indicate that the records are related such as the shade of the color or paper, or markings of a removed paper clip or staple. Would it be more difficult for archivists to arrange a digitized paper collection if these clues are not easily detected through the table interface? Are their certain clues that an archivist will only be able to determine with the physical copies?
1. Why is it that paper materials, in most archives, are processed first and digitized second? Does it seem easier to deal with the digital copies of them if they have already been organized, labeled, etc? I guess I’m just asking if there was a reason for a “process first, digitize second” approach or if it was a method developed ad hoc that has been in need of revision for some time.
ReplyDelete2. It seems pretty clear that the APT helps eliminate the artificial boundaries between born-digital and digitized materials by allowing for them to be processed together, but how does it help a collection get online more quickly?
3. The APT was designed for the archivist, to assist him/her with processing, but I’m wondering if this development will also lead to new technologies or interfaces for the researchers and other users of the archive collection. If it is easier to organize a collection with a multi-touch table, would it also be easier to access one through such a device?
1. In the section called Lack of Digital Representation for Physical Characteristics, there was no specific mention of representing weight. Is it common to ignore this characteristic when something is digitized?
ReplyDelete2. In the same section, is color also an issue for archivists when digitizing? This would include hue, tone, saturation, etc...
3. What do archivists who do not come from iSchool institutions think about this project? Are iSchools the only places where this kind of experimentation is appreciated?
1. The authors used the APT to integrate the processing of digitized and born digital materials. Not being from an archives background, does it make a difference to an archivist if an item is born digital or digitized when arranging the collection? Is there significance or meaning in how an object is represented when arranging collections? Were the born digital objects processed as though they were part of the physical collection and not born digital?
ReplyDelete2. After reading this article I wonder how the workflow for archives would change by incorporating the digitize first and process second model? The idea of doing archival processing remotely and collaboratively seems like a game changer for archives. It seemingly breaks down the temporal and spatial boundaries of traditional processing by allowing people remote access to collections and creates the possibility of a communal archive.
3. The authors state that from their observation, in general, the collection was processed as if they were physical materials. I wonder what the differences were in the two collections, physically processed and digitally processed, and if the subtle difference would be more pronounced with a larger collection? What impact would this have on the viewing of collections over time?
1. I wonder if this technology could be adapted/augmented to facilitate the assessment of three-dimensional artifacts in a collection, to allow for the processing of non-traditional documents. Through the use of digitization, this type of technology could bring information not previously able to be included in collections to a place where, in theory, the sky is the limit.
ReplyDelete2. I do wonder what happens to documents once they're digitized for use in the APT. Is the APT to serve as the final destination/assessment of the documents to be processed, or is it simply a tool allowing users to create in a digital space a proper sorting and grouping to be replicated in the "real" world at a later time?
3. Why does there exist such a divide between the processing of physical and digital-born documents? What, in the history of archives, has led to such a split?
1. This article presents a very unique approach to digitizing archives and other materials. I think the concept of arranging materials on an interactive surface in order to provide almost instant access is very interesting. However, the article wasn’t completely clear regarding how much material was used in the test phase. I know the table is still in development, but is it a viable way for libraries to manage big collections? The article discussed the amount of current backlog in libraries and the need to think differently about processing materials (336) – but is this the solution for such a large volume of materials?
ReplyDelete2. An area the article did not discuss was the cost of maintaining an APT such as the one featured in the article. I know this wasn’t the point of the article, but it is something to be considered. While the table is very impressive, are libraries going to be able to afford one (or more than one)? It seems like when budgets get cut, libraries often bear the brunt of a decrease in funding. How will this table be made affordable? Furthermore, for libraries that do acquire one, what will the training to use it be like?
3. The article mentions that the APT “can allow for notes to be directly appended to the images [on the table], something that is not done with physical items due to preservation concerns” (341). I think this is a very interesting aspect of the APT, as these notes could provide metadata or other such helpful description presumably just by tapping on the image. However, what does this mean for catalogers? Would these notes be the actual cataloging of the document or material? Would actual cataloging (perhaps for the actual physical item) be done after this?